Bernie fans: if he were more conservative than Hillary, but acting the same...

[Blue3]

Let's say all results were the same, except Bernie was actually very conservative/libertarian instead of progressive/liberal. Instead of single-payer healthcare, he wants complete privatization of healthcare. Etc. Maybe one thing that stays the same is that he still doesn't take money from anyone besides individual small donors.

Hillary's positions are the same as they are right now.

But Hillary is still ahead by millions of votes, and hundreds of pledged delegates, and superdelegates. She has still won the same states, by the same margins... same with Sanders, etc. Though that's mostly beside the point.

My point is... would you still be saying the process is rigged, happy that he's going to fight all the way to the convention, influencing the party platform despite his losses, and defending Bernie saying he wants to flood the convention with his people and defending Bernie saying that it might get messy because "that's democracy"


Sanders is the clear loser of the primaries. Down by a wide margin in votes and pledged delegates.

Yet he's still having his way with the convention with the party platform and with his people, and with not unifying the party before the convention either.

What if the country, and the party, makes a big rightward shift in the near-future? Do you really like the precedent this might be setting, giving a loser in the primaries so much power? Maybe 45% of Democrats in 2028 vote for a guy who wants to privatize healthcare and social security, and make racial/religious/gender discrimination legal nationwide again. He loses. But he gets his views put into the platform, and gets to control a lot of the convention, despite 55% voting for the other person.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think outside of the ancient aliens guy-esque crowd on facebook and reddit, the vast majority of us aren't saying that the actual voting is rigged and many don't think the superdelegates should switch over if when Bernie loses pledged either - superdelegates are undemocratic bullsh*t and should match pledged counts.

I personally think the superdelegates switching over to Bernie after he loses in pledged is undemocratic and a sketchy result barring some scandal being unearthed.  I've heard other people on this forum and elsewhere say the same thing.  I agree that'd be a bad precedent and wouldn't begrudge HRC supporters for rioting if that happens for anything other than a cataclysmic medical or criminal reason.

The "messy" stuff you are referencing from the previous article (the protests/platform fights/pushes) is in fact democracy and I wouldn't have any problem with conservatives doing that in principle though I'd vehemently push back against them.

Also, you said the dude is "having his way with the platform" - he gets to name 10 people to go to the meeting while HRC gets 12 and DWS gets 4 - hardly "having his way."  It's still a nice gesture that I appreciate though - I can't wait for people like Cornel West and Keith Ellison to have their views heard.

You criticize him for not unifying the party before the convention - I see no need to.  I do see a huge need to attack Trump after the convention though (thereby bringing his supporters onboard ), and to continue to activate his supporters to get stuff done - if he doesn't do those things, then you can justly send some castigation his way.

[Famous Mortimer]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

[Ogre Mage]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

During the 2008 Democratic Primary there was intense pressure on Hillary to drop out by Obama supporters.  

[Intell]

Definitely Not, but if a republican wants to do this, it perfectly acceptable.

[Famous Mortimer]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

During the 2008 Democratic Primary there was intense pressure on Hillary to drop out by Obama supporters.  

Well it was dumb then too but it certainly wasn't as loud. I think every state should have the right to choose between at least two active candidates. No one candidate elections in America.

[Ogre Mage]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

During the 2008 Democratic Primary there was intense pressure on Hillary to drop out by Obama supporters.  

Well it was dumb then too but it certainly wasn't as loud. I think every state should have the right to choose between at least two active candidates. No one candidate elections in America.

As someone who was around and watching that election, I don't agree.  High-profile Obama surrogates began telling the media Clinton should drop out as early as March 2008.  And Obama's pledged delegate lead was less than half the size of Clinton's current lead.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/leahy-clinton-should-drop-out/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/post_28.html


There was even a column in Slate in 2008 called the "Hillary Deathwatch."  LOL, is that not intense and loud pressure to get out?  A sample:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/deathwatch.html

[BlueSwan]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

Honestly, I really don't think very many Hillary supporters would have been desperate for Sanders to drop out if he had stuck to running on the issues. What worries them (and me) is the vitriolic nature of the campaign against Clinton, the conpiracy theory nonsense, the Bernie Or Bust s**t, the talk about a "contested" convention and the growing feeling that Sanders might not wholeheartedly endorse and campaign for Clinton in the end.

Nobody serious (not counting message boards) ever thought that Clinton would not support Obama in 2008 or vice versa. Clinton and Obama are totally committed to the democratic party. Sanders is not.

To be clear, I would still be surprised if Sanders did not endorse Clinton, but I'm sceptical as to how forcefully he will do it. I was never sceptical that Clinton would get fully behind Obama in 2008.

[RaphaelDLG]

HELL NO!

The only reason I like Sanders so much is his great true progressive left policy (that he actually means) and his unwavering commitment thereto for the past 5-odd decades. It's sad how many people voted 'Yes'.

I also still take exception to the word 'fans'.

I think you may have misread the question.  I read it not as asking whether you would vote for a conservative sanders or not, it's asking whether or not you would approve of his tactics if he was someone you didn't agree with ideologically.

[dax00]

HELL NO!

The only reason I like Sanders so much is his great true progressive left policy (that he actually means) and his unwavering commitment thereto for the past 5-odd decades. It's sad how many people voted 'Yes'.

I also still take exception to the word 'fans'.

I think you may have misread the question.  I read it not as asking whether you would vote for a conservative sanders or not, it's asking whether or not you would approve of his tactics if he was someone you didn't agree with ideologically.

Oh, I got energized a bit too early to read much more. My bad. REDACT that previous comment. Yes. All the primary voters have a pseudo-right to be represented at the convention, including Martin O'Malley's supporters. Even if they were spouting theocracy crap.

This is why I allow change of votes on all my polls -.- (+1 to Yes, -1 from No)

[IceSpear]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

During the 2008 Democratic Primary there was intense pressure on Hillary to drop out by Obama supporters.  

Well it was dumb then too but it certainly wasn't as loud. I think every state should have the right to choose between at least two active candidates. No one candidate elections in America.

Er...no. Many high level Obama surrogates were calling on Hillary to drop out despite her arguably winning the popular vote and being much closer in pledged delegates than Bernie currently is. On the flip side, very few if any Hillary surrogates have called on Bernie to drop out. The only people that have done so are random pundits. And even then, far more pundits were calling for Hillary to drop than are now calling for Bernie to do so.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

sounds like you've got a severe case of dril's wise man syndrome

[Mallow]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

Honestly, I really don't think very many Hillary supporters would have been desperate for Sanders to drop out if he had stuck to running on the issues. What worries them (and me) is the vitriolic nature of the campaign against Clinton, the conpiracy theory nonsense, the Bernie Or Bust s**t, the talk about a "contested" convention and the growing feeling that Sanders might not wholeheartedly endorse and campaign for Clinton in the end.

Nobody serious (not counting message boards) ever thought that Clinton would not support Obama in 2008 or vice versa. Clinton and Obama are totally committed to the democratic party. Sanders is not.

To be clear, I would still be surprised if Sanders did not endorse Clinton, but I'm sceptical as to how forcefully he will do it. I was never sceptical that Clinton would get fully behind Obama in 2008.

This is pretty much how I feel, and I am generally a "Bernie fan".

[nicholas.slaydon]

No I don't vote for people just because I like their attitude or how they present their arguments, I vote for people because of their policies. I don't support Hillary because she is way to conservative, and I certainly would never support anyone that is more conservative than her.

[SillyAmerican]

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

Agreed.

Here's the thing that party insiders will be banging their heads over for some time to come: if the GOP had superdelegates, a candidate like Trump would have a tougher time securing the nomination, and if the Dems didn't have superdelegates, a candidate like Sanders would have an easier time securing the nomination. Democracy is a very messy business. Yes, a very very messy business...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No. My support is based on policy, not attitude.

[dax00]

The last few posters seem to also have misread the question.

[Pyro]

I believe it is a healthy precedent not to take money from big doners and a healthy precedent not to succumb to party bosses who demand you drop out and endorse their chosen candidate. There is no law that demands a candidate drop out to "unify" the party. Apart from that, anything that threatens our two-party duopoly is fine by me.

That being said, no, I don't believe very many Bernie fans would approve of him if he were running on a platform of healthcare privatization and spending reduction.

[Blue3]

HELL NO!

The only reason I like Sanders so much is his great true progressive left policy (that he actually means) and his unwavering commitment thereto for the past 5-odd decades. It's sad how many people voted 'Yes'.

I also still take exception to the word 'fans'.

I think you may have misread the question.  I read it not as asking whether you would vote for a conservative sanders or not, it's asking whether or not you would approve of his tactics if he was someone you didn't agree with ideologically.

This is correct.

I support the right of candidates to run in any election they like. They should not have to drop out just because they are going to lose. The idea that they should is bizarre and no one has ever put it forward except Hillary supports at this current moment.

I'm not saying he should drop out before the primaries end. Neither is Hillary. I'm just saying he shouldn't fight it at the convention itself, or try to control the agenda when most people didn't vote for it.

I'm asking... do you really think so many concessions should be made to someone who got a minority of the vote and the pledged delegates? It might help the progressive movement now, but it could hurt it later.

HELL NO!

The only reason I like Sanders so much is his great true progressive left policy (that he actually means) and his unwavering commitment thereto for the past 5-odd decades. It's sad how many people voted 'Yes'.

I also still take exception to the word 'fans'.

I think you may have misread the question.  I read it not as asking whether you would vote for a conservative sanders or not, it's asking whether or not you would approve of his tactics if he was someone you didn't agree with ideologically.

Oh, I got energized a bit too early to read much more. My bad. REDACT that previous comment. Yes. All the primary voters have a pseudo-right to be represented at the convention, including Martin O'Malley's supporters. Even if they were spouting theocracy crap.

This is why I allow change of votes on all my polls -.- (+1 to Yes, -1 from No)

I'm not saying Sanders shouldn't be represented.

I'm refuting the idea that Hillary should concede on policies to him... when she is going to have a majority, and he's going to have a minority.

No I don't vote for people just because I like their attitude or how they present their arguments, I vote for people because of their policies. I don't support Hillary because she is way to conservative, and I certainly would never support anyone that is more conservative than her.

I think you're misunderstanding the topic too. This isn't about policies.

No. My support is based on policy, not attitude.

You've misunderstood it too.

I believe it is a healthy precedent not to take money from big doners and a healthy precedent not to succumb to party bosses who demand you drop out and endorse their chosen candidate. There is no law that demands a candidate drop out to "unify" the party. Apart from that, anything that threatens our two-party duopoly is fine by me.

That being said, no, I don't believe very many Bernie fans would approve of him if he were running on a platform of healthcare privatization and spending reduction.

This isn't about policy.

This is about Sanders (a minority) trying to decide things for the whole party that the majority has rejected.

[Pyro]

I believe it is a healthy precedent not to take money from big doners and a healthy precedent not to succumb to party bosses who demand you drop out and endorse their chosen candidate. There is no law that demands a candidate drop out to "unify" the party. Apart from that, anything that threatens our two-party duopoly is fine by me.

That being said, no, I don't believe very many Bernie fans would approve of him if he were running on a platform of healthcare privatization and spending reduction.

This isn't about policy.

This is about Sanders (a minority) trying to decide things for the whole party that the majority has rejected.

Considering how ready and willing Hillary is to compromise with the Republicans, there is no reason she shouldn't be leading the effort in the party to compromise with Sanders and allow him to have a voice. That's how you get some semblance of political unity.